FA 9/15 & Anr. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 46 FIRST APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2005 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL CONSTRUCTION DIV. MSEB PARLI WAIJINATH DIST. BEED VERSUS MADHAVRAO DATTALTRAYA WADGAONKAR AND ANR ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. R.A. Tambe AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. R.B. Dhaware Advocate for Respondent 1 : Ms. Tanvi S. Pujari h/f. Mr. P.V. Barde ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2005 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL CONSTRUCTION DIV. MSEB PARLI WAIJINATH DIST. BEED VERSUS MADHAVRAO DATTALTRAYA WADGAONKAR AND ANR ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. R.A. Tambe AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. R.B. Dhaware Advocate for Respondent 1 : Ms. Tanvi S. Pujari h/f. Mr. P.V. Barde ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : July 07, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.8.2004 passed by the learned Ist Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ambajogai in LAR Nos. 456/1989 and 457/1989, the acquiring body preferred the present appeals. 3. The lands of the claimants were acquired by the State for ash bund of Thermal Power Station, Parli Vaijnath. Notification under section 4 was published on 25.3.1982. The possession of the acquired lands was taken by the State and the award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Act 2026:BHC-AUG:27624 FA 9/15 & Anr. 2 (SLAO) on 30.5.1986 in LAR Nos. 457/1989 and on 2.7.1984 in LAR No. 456/1989. The SLAO has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per R. and Rs. 70/- per R. Claimants accepted the amount under protest and preferred the above references. The reference court enhanced the compensation amount at the rate of Rs.375/- per R. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the reference court, the acquiring body has preferred present appeals. 4. Mr. Rahul Tamble, learned counsel for the appellant/acquiring body submits that though reference court has recorded finding that the lands which were acquired are having potential of irrigated land, but no evidence was led by the claimants. He submits that the learned reference court has made observations about the earlier LAR No. 62/1991, but that is not from the same project. He submits that in respect of present matters, the reference court ought to have decided on it’s own merits. He submits that only on the guess work, the reference court has enhanced the compensation. He submits that infact from the same project, other references were filed in which enhanced compensation was granted, but it was up to the four times and therefore, in Lok Adalat those appeals were disposed of. He therefore prays to allow the appeals. 5. Ms. Tanvi S. Pujari h/f. Mr. P.V. Barde, learned counsel appears for respondents/claimants and supports the order passed by the reference court by contending that as the land of the mother of the claimants from Gat No. 86 came to be acquired and her mother filed LAR No. 62/1991 in which reference court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per R. She submits that considering the land in LAR No. 62/1991 and the land in the present matter which is acquired, they are having of same quality. She FA 9/15 & Anr. 3 further relied on the sale instance below Exh. 33, 34 and 36 and submits that those sale instances were prior to section 4 notification and therefore, she is entitled to receive 10% escalation every year from the date of registered sale deed and therefore, she prays to dismiss the appeals. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference court, it appears that there is no dispute about the fact that land bearing Gat No. 86 belongs to mother of the claimant which is subject matter of LAR No. 62/1991 wherein the reference court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per R. Even though the notifications were different, but the lands were acquired for the same project and considering the location of the lands and considering that the lands were acquired for the same project though under different notifications and considering the comparable sale instances below Exhs. 33, 34 and 36 which were prior to section 4 notification, I find that the learned reference court has rightly enhanced the compensation by considering the comparable sale instances which were prior to section 4 notification. The reference court has enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 375/- per R. from Rs. 50/- and Rs.70/-. The said amount is very meager. Considering the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned reference court. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reference court has granted interest and other statutory benefits from the date of taking the possession of the acquired lands and the same is contrary in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. FA 9/15 & Anr. 4 8. Considering the above, I pass the following order. O R D E R (I) The appeals are partly allowed. (II) The claimants shall be entitled to interest and other statutory benefits strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari. (III) Rest of the award is maintained. (IV) Award is modified accordingly. (V) Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/